Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'Changes nothing'. It also adds non-annotation context: the 90-day retention window, batch grouping, and that undone status is included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence plus a short safety clause; the 90-day window and batch scope are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description partly shoulders the return-value burden by describing batches, per-change detail, and undo status, which is what an agent needs to decide relevance. It could go further by signaling the identifiers needed to feed seo_fields_undo, but it is otherwise adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (site, server) are already documented in the schema, so the description carries no extra parameter burden. It adds no syntax or defaulting advice beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline for a fully-covered 2-param tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete resource (batches of SEO title/description/alt-text changes on a site) and the scope (last 90 days). It is clearly a read/history tool, distinct from seo_fields_apply or seo_fields_undo, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the word 'history' and 'Changes nothing', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against adjacent tools like seo_history, content_undo, or seo_fields_undo (which presumably consumes the batch ids returned here).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.